Procedural Pitfalls: Why Venue and Prescription Can Sink Your Asbestos Claim

The Venue Trap: Choosing the Proper Parish for Your Lawsuit

In Louisiana, “Venue” is more than just a convenience; it is a jurisdictional requirement. Under LSA-C.C.P. art. 41, you must generally file your suit in the parish where the defendant lives, is located, or conducts business. As the Pickett case demonstrates, choosing the wrong parish (like Webster instead of Morehouse) isn’t just an administrative error—it can be a fatal blow to your legal rights.

The Interruption Rule: Why Proper Venue Protects Your Prescription

Louisiana’s one-year “Prescription” period is a ticking clock. Filing a lawsuit usually pauses (interrupts) this clock, but there is a massive catch: the clock is only interrupted if the suit is filed in a proper venue. If you file in an improper venue, the clock keeps ticking unless the defendant is actually served within that one-year window. In the Pickett case, because the plaintiffs filed in the wrong parish and didn’t serve the defendant in time, their claim was dismissed—not because they weren’t sick, but because they were too late.

Solidary Obligors: The “Anchor” Defendant Strategy

One common way to establish venue is to sue “Solidary Obligors” (multiple defendants who share responsibility). If venue is proper for one, it is proper for all. However, the court in Pickett issued a critical warning: the injuries must arise from the same incidents. Because the exposure from one company occurred at a different time and place than the exposure from another, they were not solidary obligors. This means you cannot use a “weak” link to anchor a major defendant in a favorable parish.

On television, legal cases are decided by dramatic testimonies and secret evidence. In reality, a multi-million dollar asbestos claim can be destroyed by a single ‘technicality.’ As the tragic case of Pickett v. International Paper Company illustrates, filing your mesothelioma lawsuit in the wrong Louisiana Parish isn’t just a mistake—it’s a procedural trap that can lead to the permanent dismissal of your rights before a judge ever hears a single medical fact.

Two procedural rules were at issue in the Pickett case. One of these was venue. In legal terminology, venue refers to the location of the proper legal location in which a case should be filed – in other words, the court in the proper parish.

Under Louisiana’s rules of civil procedure, proper venue is typically determined by where an alleged defendant lives, is located, or conducts business (LSA-C.C.P. art. 41). That rule embodies an aspect of fairness to the party who must defend itself against a claim of wrongdoing. If there are jointly responsible defendants, the venue rule need only be satisfied as to one of them. If a defendant is a business or corporation that does not have an actual place of business in the state, a plaintiff may file suit in the parish where the plaintiff lives (LSA-C.C.P art. 42).

The second rule that helped determine the outcome of the Pickett case was presciption. Under Louisiana law, an injured party has one year from the date the injury was sustained to file a lawsuit. That one-year limit is often called the prescriptive period. If not filed within one year, that particular claim is barred by the passage of time. In certain cases, the prescriptive period may be essentially paused. However, in most cases the one-year limit applies.

The Pickett case was decided at an intersection of the venue and prescription rules. The plaintiffs in the case had filed a lawsuit in Webster Parish against multiple defendants. Most of these defendants were former employers of the plaintiffs who allegedly caused the plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.

The particular defendant involved in the venue and prescription issues, Eaton Corporation, was a successor-in-interest to one of those companies. Eaton initially challenged the plaintiffs’ claims against it based on improper venue. It asserted, and the plaintiffs actually agreed, that Webster Parish was not the proper place to file suit against Eaton.

The parties agreed that proper venue actually lay in Morehouse Parish, and the case was transferred to that parish’s court.

Eaton then argued to the Morehouse Parish court that the plaintiffs’ case was actually prescribed because Eaton was not sued in proper venue within the one-year prescriptive period. As long as a case is filed in a venue that is proper, the prescriptive period can be paused, even if that venue later becomes improper.

For instance, venue may become improper if venue was based on a particular defendant and that defendant becomes no longer involved in the case. Eaton argued that Webster Parish was never proper venue for a suit against it. Therefore, the prescriptive period for the plaintiffs’ claims against Eaton was never interrupted, or paused, and Eaton was not served notice of the lawsuit until well after that prescriptive period expired.

The plaintiffs challenged Eaton’s prescription argument using two of the alternate venue rules, trying to establish that Webster Parish was a proper venue for the case at the outset. If Webster Parish was initially proper venue, the case against Eaton would have been filed in a timely manner.

First, the plaintiffs attempted to assert proper venue based on the fact that venue was proper for another defendant, Asten Group. According to legal precedent, if venue is proper as to one defendant, it is proper as to all “joint or solidary obligors” 

However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ injuries from Asten arose from different incidents than did the injuries attributable to Eaton. Thus, Eaton and Asten were not “joint and solidary” defendants, and the plaintiffs must establish proper venue for its claims against Eaton on their own account.

Secondly, the plaintiffs asserted that some of their injuries were due to events occurring in Webster Parish. Therefore, venue would have been proper in Webster Parish at the time the suit commenced.

However, the court found that Eaton did not have operations in Webster Parish. Thus, the plaintiffs could not establish proper venue as to Eaton based on occurrences in Webster Parish.

Finding that the prescriptive period had indeed lapsed, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against Eaton. This case illustrates that legal claims can be decided based on technical details, regardless of what the actual evidence in the case indicates. The Pickett case provides yet another example of how important a quality, detail-oriented legal team is in protecting the rights of injured persons.

Understanding venue is the first step in managing your asbestos prescription deadlines. Choosing the right court is vital when dealing with diverse defendant groups who may not share solidary liability.

The Pickett case is a somber reminder that in the world of toxic torts, a detail-oriented legal team is just as important as a medical diagnosis. At the Berniard Law Firm, we specialize in the procedural complexities of Louisiana venue and prescription rules to ensure that your path to justice isn’t blocked by a technicality. Contact the Berniard Law Firm today for a free review of your case and a clear map of your legal options.